How will climate negotiators deal with diminishing carbon budget for 1.5C?
Some thoughts from our recent @OneEarth_CP paper "#UNFCCC must confront the political economy of net-negative emissions"
Now available #OpenAccess for 2 months cell.com/one-earth/full…#COP26
(1/n)
Basic problem is quite easy to understand. We're very close to 1.5C, and even if you think it's still possible to stay within the remaining carbon budget (<500 Gt), this would mean that every country needs to reach net zero pretty soon. #COP26
(3/n)
This is how this would look like (stylised pathways). Would this be 'fair' in a global context, keeping in mind historical responsibility for climate chnage? Probably not. But whatever you think, for #UNFCCC negotiations it is more important what governments think #COP26
(4/n)
Well, India seems to think that such a trajectory wouldn't be fair, rejects to set a net-zero year, instead started to demand that developed countries commit to reaching net-negative first huffpost.com/entry/india-cl… #COP26
(5/n)
Here's how it could look like (again, stylised pathways).
No overshoot of global carbon budget, but developed countries net-negative from 2045, China stays at net zero, India and others peaking ~2030, and staying above net-zero #COP26
(7/n)
But India and other developed countries could even call for considering a 3rd option (again, stylised pathways).
Overshooting global carbon budget (as assumed in many #IPCC scenarios), "payback" through developed countries & China, even later peak for India and ROW #COP26
(8/n)
We were not the first ones to think about this. 10 years ago, @tavoni_massimo, Rob Socolow & @spacem0nk3y already saw it coming.
But now it finally reaches #UNFCCC negotiations, mostly likely during the Global Stocktake, to be concluded 2023 mdpi.com/2071-1050/4/2/… #COP26
(9/n)
Even although this makes sense in a strict 'carbon counting' perspective, there are obvs. many caveats and downsides. More on that later, once #COP26 started.
For now, I refer you to our lead author's thread
As promised, now more on the topics I was deeply involved in as #IPCC#AR6 Synthesis Report author, both in the Summary for Policymakers & the so-called 'Longer Report':
overhoot, net zero, mitigation pathways (incl. CDR)
Let's start with "Overshoot" (B.7), where I was responsible for drafting and 'negotiating' in plenary, but of course not alone (mainly together with @chrisd_jones, with whom I worked on corresponding section 3.3.4 in underlying report) #IPCC#AR6#SYR ipcc.ch/report/ar6/syr/ 2/n
Unfortunately, the UN Secretary General still doesn't understand difference betw net-zero CO2 and much more ambitious net-zero GHG targets. The famous 2050 is net-zero CO2 for 1.5C, net-zero GHG only some decades later, as per #IPCC WG3 & Synthesis Report politico.eu/article/climat…
UN Secretary General has been ill-advised by his own high-level expert group on net-zero, which also confuses net-zero CO2 and net-zero GHG.
After 3 yrs of hard work & a long approval plenary, we got the #IPCC#AR6 Synthesis Report published today, consisting of the Summary for Policymakers and a full report version ➡️ ipcc.ch/report/ar6/syr/
An ongoing 🧵, starting with SPM fig 1 on adverse climate change impacts 1/n
Today we publish the 1st edition of the "State of Carbon Dioxide Removal" report, a global assessment of the current #StateofCDR, and the gap we need to close to achieve the Paris temperature goal.
Full report➡️stateofcdr.org
An ongoing 🧵
[1]
This report compiles a first estimate of the total CDR being deployed (2 GtCO2/yr).
Almost all comes from "conventional" CDR on land, via afforestation, reforestation & forest management.
"Novel" methods don’t contribute much yet. #StateofCDR
[2]
We provide a calculation of total gross CDR in #IPCC-assessed pathways to keep warming below 1.5C and 2C, including all methods. All pathways involve substantial cumulative CDR volumes (450-1100 GtCO2 by 2100) - in addition to immediate & deep emissions reductions #StateofCDR
[3]
The @UN#HLEGReport on Net-zero Emissions Committments is out
The problem though: #IPCC 1.5C pathways don't reach net zero GHG emissions by "2050 or sooner", but by the end of the century. The famous "net zero by 2050" (better "early 2050s) is CO2 only un.org/en/climatechan… 1/
You might be in disbelief, but have a look at the #IPCC AR6 WG3 Summary for Policymakers, Table SPM.2:
For 1.5C with no or limited overshoot (category C1), pathways reach net-zero CO2 in 2050-2055, but net-zero GHG in 2095-2100 ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg3… 2/n
The difference between net-zero CO2 and net-zero GHG can be explained by the dominant role of non-CO2 GHGs (methane, nitrous oxide, f-gases) in residual emissions and the dominant role of CO2 in removals
➡️Only 6 out of 97 scenarios in the #IPCC#AR6 WG3 category C1 ('no to limited overshoot') never cross 1.5C
➡️91 out of 97 cross 1.5C temporarily, and then go back to 1.5°C by 2100
If you read the Summary for Policymakers of IPCC AR6 WG1 (Aug. 2021), this cannot come as surprise
Below the numbers from #IPCC#AR6 WG1. Not sure if this knowledge was conciously included in "keeping 1.5C alive and within reach" messaging around #COP26.
'Overshoot' pathways (= exceedance & return) didn't make it onto the high-level #UNFCCC agenda yet ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1…
The overshoot logic might also a little bit hard to detect in this #IPCC#AR6 WG1 SPM figure. That's because overshoot is quite small (0.1°C) for SSP1-1.9, while at the same time all standard RCP levels (1.9-8.5) are shown in one figure ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1…